Editorial
CPA requirements
benefit University
Next fall the University will compute grade point
averages on students' report cards. These GPA requirements
will be easier to understand and calculate than the percen
tage rules currently used.
The present graduation requirements stipulate students
must pass 85 percent of their University work with grades of
A. B. C, D, or P. Seventy-five percent of the students’ classes
must be passed with grades of A. B. C. or P. These rules are
complicated and difficult to calculate.
The new GPA requirements mandate students to have a
2.00 GPA minimum to graduate Pluses and minuses will be
included and count as three-tenths of a grade point.
Academic warnings and probation also will be included
in the system. A warning will come if a student has a GPA
lower than 2.00 for one term, but a cumulative GPA higher
than 2.00. Probation occurs when the cumulative GPA is
lower than 2.00.
This system comes as the result of an agreement in 1979
between faculty and the University Registrar to simplify
GPA requirements. The University recently obtained the
computer support needed to convert students' records from
the percentage to the GPA system.
The GPA system is long overdue. Now that it is here,
students will be able to calculate their GPA and know where
they stand in terms of graduating. The University also will
lie better able to keep track of a student's progress.
It may take a while to adjust to the changes, but the
overall result will be more beneficial. The GPA system will
benefit everyone.
Offender's scarlet letter
unnecessary punishment
Recently, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge
ordered a sex offender to place warning signs reading
"dangerous sex offender, no children allowed" on his motor
vehicle and residence. The judge claimed the signs would
protect the neighborhood and children.
This disciplinary action, however, will cause more pro
blems than it solves.
The signs will inhibit the offender's attempt to become
reintegrated with society. Even after he serves his short jail
sentence and mandatory treatment program, people will
continue to distrust him. invoking needless ambivalence.
The offender will be shunned from society as a result of
the signs. The distrust the signs instill will cause potential
apartment managers and employers to avoid dealing with
the offender, imbedding in him a frustration with society —
a frustration that may lead to more crime.
Moreover, the public reaction to the signs may not stop
at distrust. The signs may elicit verbal abuse, and the poten
tial for vigilante physical abuse against the offender will be
enhanced.
Although the signs may protect the public, the offender
will be placed in considerable danger.
Rather than advertise an offender's problems, the
judicial system should impose either a stiffer jail sentence or
extend and intensify the treatment program.
Signs do not solve the problem. Instead, they merely
make the problem known — and this will serve to make the
situation worse.
I I GOT A
BOOK OF
1 TATTOOS!
(I GOT '
A SECRET
DECODER
RING! ,
1G0T
A
CONDOM.
Letters
Creation/Evolution debate a sham
just four days after the U S.
Supreme Court struck down a
Umisiana law requiring the
teaching of "creation science"
in public schools as a "sham,"
the Restoration Campus
Ministry conducted a sham in
the guise of a debate on campus
on June 23. proving if nothing
else fundamentalists are nut
easily dissuaded from their
carefully orchestrated tactics.
Commentary by
Aaron Knox
Umsiana law. according to
the Court, may not require
public schools teaching evolu
tion to also teach creationism.
The law does not even mandate
the teaching of creationism, the
Court pointed out. Rather, it re
quires the teaching of the theory
only when the theory of evolu
tion also is taught.
Fundamentalists like Dr.
Dwayne Gish, associate director
of the Institute for Creation
Science, argue the Ixiuisiana
law promotes academic
freedom by providing all the
alternative theories for
students.
It is a nice sentiment, but it
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Tuesday end
Thursday during the summer by the Oregon Dally Emerald
Publishing Co. at the University ot Oregon. Eugene.
Oregon. 97403 Daily publication will resume with the fall
term
The Emerald operates independently ol the University
with otftcee on the third tloor ot the Erb Memorial Union
and is a member ot the Associated Press
The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal
or use ot papers is prosecutable by law
General Stall
Advertising Director Susan Thelen
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Assistant to the Publisher
Michele Ross
Alyson Simmons
Jean Ownbey
Editor Stanley Nelson
Managing Sports Editor Lucinda Dillon
News Editor Eden Godby
Editorial Page Editor Angela Munir
Photo Editor Shu Shing Chen
Aiiociilt Editors
Student Govt 'Student Activities Carolyn Lamberson
Higher Ed'Administration Mike Drummond
General Assignment /Entertainment Aaron Kno>
Community Stephen Maher
Advertising: Janelle Neumann
Production: Sandra Oaller / Ad Coordinator
Kelly Alexandre. Eliot Knight. Diana Moy, Angela Munu.
Ingrid White. Serena Williams
News and Editorial
Display Advertising
Classified Advertising
Letter Perfect Graphics
Production
Circulation and Business
686 5511
MA3712
CM 4343
656 5511
686 43*1
68* 5511
disguises the true cause of the
fundamentalist movement.
Justice William Brennan,
writing for the majority, cap
tured the essence of that cause
when he said "the pre-eminent
purpose.. . was clearly to ad
vance the religious viewpoint
that a supernatural being
created humankind."
Brennan went on to say that
"while the court is normally
deferential to a state's articula
tion of a secular purpose |for a
law), it is required that the state
ment of such purpose be sincere
and not a sham."
Gish makes his living pro
moting creationism in the
public forum By his own ad
mission. he has participated "in
over 200 debates in the last 10
years." His at!versary in the
KGM-sponsored debate last
week was University biology
professor Dr. David Wagner,
whose last formal debato on the
subject — against Gish and
KGM-sponsored. occurred four
years ago. Wagner, in his open
ing remarks, called himself an
"intellectual hobbiest" in his
study of creationism.
The format of the debate,
while not favoring one side
more than the other, favored
whoever ignored its rules. Gish
and Wagner exchanged, both in
writing and on the phone, a
number of proposed questions
from which each was to extract
his arguments. Wagner, speak
ing first, identified the ques
tions he was answering, and
structured his remarks
accordingly.
The first statement made by
Gish in his subsequent argu
ment was inconsistent with the
question he had himself provid
ed to Wagner. Gish chose, for
reasons of his own. to ignore
Wagner’s questions and launch
ed into a prepared statement
that sought to refute evolu
tionist theories rather than to
defend creationist ones.
The day after the debate Gish
said. "I use a pretty standard
format for all my debates. The
evolutionists never seem to
know what they are going to say
in advance, or they change their
minds, so I use the same
arguments for all of them."
All of this adds up a stacked
deck, and Wagner himself said
it best when he prefaced his
argument by saying "I realize
that in agreeing to this debate I
have already lost."
Dick Heswick, director of
ROM, served as moderator for
the delude. He admitted after
wards Gish did not address
Wagner's questions, but
defended the deflate as “a suc
cess." His most revealing ad
mission. however, was in reac
tion to the audience/question
portion of the debate. "1 was
disturbed because the audience
ignored my instructions about
questioning (Wagner and Gish),
but that portion of the debate
did bring out some interesting
philosophical questions."
The irony should nut be lost
on the casual observer. It was
only at the point where the au
dience digressed from the for
mal rules of the debate and
where Gish was forced to ad
dress the same questions as
Wagner, and it was that portion
of the debate that most displeas
ed Beswick.
The fight between evolu
tionists and creationists is a
valid, intellectual one. and it
should be encouraged at ail
turns. Gare must be taken,
however, to ensure that what
occurs is in fact a debate and not
merely a platform for creationist
(or. for that matter, evolutionist)
theory.